WAISTLINES AND RATINGS OF
EXECUTIVES: DOES EXECUTIVE
STATUS OVERCOME OBESITY STIGMA?
E DE N B. KIN G, S T E V E N G . R O G E L B E R G , M I C H E L L E R . H EB L,
PHIL L IP W. BRA D D Y, L I N D A R . S H A N O C K ,
SHARON C. DOE R E R , A N D S H A R O N M C D O W E L L - L A R S E N
Top executives hold positions that convey power, prestige, and competence as
predicted by status characteristics theory. Nevertheless, the impressions generated through this status characteristic may be vulnerable when executives also
possess characteristics that reflect a devalued social identity, such as obesity. Data
from health examinations and multisource evaluation surveys of 757 CEOs, vice
presidents, and upper managers suggest that the observable cue of umbilical
waist circumference is negatively associated with evaluations of leaders across
hierarchical levels, even after controlling for Body Mass Index, physical activity,
personality, and demographic characteristics. Thus, hierarchically based status
characteristics are insufficient in overcoming the stigma of obesity: even CEOs are
subject to the pernicious effects of obesity stigma. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Keywords: diversity, social issues
A
few months after devouring doughnuts
on the popular Late Show with David
Letterman, admittedly obese New Jersey
Governor Chris Christie confirmed that
he underwent gastric band surgery. The
Wall Street Journal described this decision as a
“move that comes amid concerns about his
health as he emerges as a national player in the
Republican Party” (Haddon & Winslow, 2013).
Beyond physical health concerns, party strategists
may also be aware that obesity is associated with
negative interpersonal perceptions that might
impede political success.
According to the National Institutes of
Health (NIH), two thirds of the American population is overweight or obese (NIH, 2010). Despite
the prevalence of obesity, Americans’ attitudes
toward and perceptions of heavy individuals are
typically more negative than those toward other
targets of stigma (Crandall & Martinez, 1996).
Whereas members of many social identity groups
derive positive self-image and support from their
in-groups, even the parents of obese children
(Crandall, 1994) and obese individuals themselves
often stigmatize obesity (Crandall & Biernat, 1990;
Crocker, Cornwell, & Major, 1993). Heavy individuals are evaluated more negatively than thin individuals in both selection (Finkelstein, Demuth, &
Sweeney, 2007) and training contexts (Shapiro,
King, & Quiñones, 2007), and increases in weight
are associated with decreases in income (Judge
& Cable, 2011). Indeed, reviews of evidence on
employment discrimination toward obese workers yield similar conclusions of general stigmatization (Roehling, 1999; Rudolph, Wells, Weller, &
Baltes, 2008). However, the extent to which such
Correspondence to: Eden B. King, George Mason University, Department of Psychology, 4400 University Drive
MSN 3f5, Fairfax, Virginia 22030, Phone: 703-993-1620, Fax: 713-993-1620, E-mail: [email protected]
Human Resource Management, March–April 2016, Vol. 55, No. 2. Pp. 283–300
© 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com).
DOI:10.1002/hrm.21667
284 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, MARCH–APRIL 2016
findings extend to the highest levels—one that
conveys substantial social status—is unclear.
According to status characteristics theory, valued attributes (i.e., status characteristics) give rise
to positive performance expectations and impressions of competence (Berger, Cohen, & Zelditch,
1966). In addition, positive interpretations of
behavior can be associated with status characteristics that are valued (Gerber, 1996). Being a
member of the C-suite, much like occupying a
high-level political office, conveys wealth, power,
prestige, and competence (Ravlin & Thomas,
2005). Indeed, leaders have greater influence and
are rated more positively with regard to power and
competence than are lower status group members
(Harvey, 1953; Hollander, 1961; Sherif, White, &
Harvey, 1955; Torrance, 1955). Though expectations of individuals are typically derived from
more than a single characteristic (Humphreys &
Berger, 1981), it is difficult to conceive of characteristics that reduce the status conveyed by a top
executive job title in the workplace. Nevertheless,
these positive expectations and
impressions of competence may be
The negative status
vulnerable when top executives also
associated with the possess characteristics that reflect
a devalued (i.e., stigmatized) social
stigma of obesity
identity—especially when the devalued attribute is highly visible as in
may overshadow
the case of obesity.
We propose that the negative
the powerful status
status associated with the stigma of
characteristic of a top obesity may overshadow the powerful status characteristic of a top
management position.
management position, considered
here as CEOs or company presidents. This study addresses meaningful internal
and external validity limitations of the existing
body of research on obesity discrimination in the
workplace (Puhl & Heuer, 2009; Rudolph et al.,
2008). First, conclusions about employment discrimination toward obese individuals are primarily based on experiments that assess bias toward
fictitious targets (i.e., “paper-people”; see Rudolph
et al., 2008) that can inflate relationships found
in authentic samples (see Murphy, Herr, Lockhart,
& Maguire, 1986). Second, laboratory studies generally fail to account for preexisting relationships
that occur between raters and ratees in real-world
settings, raising questions about the generalizability of existing findings in light of evidence
that biases are less likely to emerge when raters
know more about targets (Fiske & Neuberg, 1990).
Third, these laboratory studies tend to focus on
analyses contrasting narrow job types, such as
positions involving high and low levels of contact with the public, and thus may not apply to
high status positions. Fourth, studies outside
of the laboratory rely nearly exclusively on selfreport survey data or perceived discrimination
(Roehling, 1999), which is subject to perceptual
biases (Crosby, 1984; Elgar, Roberts, Tudor-Smith,
& Moore, 2005). Fifth, while field studies typically control for or explore the role of gender and
ethnicity on weight discrimination, they rarely
include other characteristics (such as personality)
that may influence indices of bias (M. V. Roehling,
Roehling, & Odland, 2008). Sixth, both laboratory
and field studies are limited in their operationalization of obesity by relying on judgments of
“overweight” versus “not overweight” body sizes
as a function of photographs or body mass index
(BMI) that may not fully account for cues that give
rise to the stigma of obesity. Finally, nearly every
study previously conducted on the stigma of obesity has focused on employees in or applicants for
low- to midlevel positions. Thus, while it is clear
that fictitious individuals who appear to be obese
are stigmatized in low- and midlevel jobs, it is not
yet known whether individuals at the highest levels of organizations are subjected to bias.
These limitations, taken with the predictions of
status characteristics theory, give rise to questions
about the boundary conditions and generalizability of obesity discrimination in the workplace.
The central question addressed in this paper is,
does the stigma of obesity eclipse the positive
outcomes resulting from status associated with
a top management position? Thus, this research
makes four contributions to the literature. First,
we uniquely integrate sociological and psychological perspectives by drawing from status characteristics and stigma theories to understand whether
devalued physical characteristics can overwhelm
positive hierarchical status cues. Second, by examining multisource ratings of actual top executives
(rather than self-ratings, evaluations of strangers,
or “paper-people” in a lab setting) and upper managers, we offer novel empirical evidence addressing the question of whether bias affects those
who have attained hierarchical status using raters
who have existing relationships with the executives. Third, we build understanding of the cues
that give rise to stigma by considering umbilical waist circumference, which was assessed by a
third-party health care professional as a specific,
observable cue that triggers negative expectations.
We also test the robustness of our findings by considering additional factors—personality, physical
activity, and demographic characteristics—that
could impinge on the relationship between upper
managers’ weight and their performance ratings.
Fourth, in considering obesity stigma as it intersects with age and gender, this work addresses
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
OBESITY
understudied aspects of identity intersectionality.
As a result, this research addresses many of the
substantive validity concerns of previous research
and provides one of the most theoretically comprehensive examinations of obesity bias to date.
Overall, this article will contribute to the literature
on status characteristic theory and executive evaluation. We begin by providing a brief overview of
status characteristics theory before arguing that
both hierarchical level and obesity are important
status characteristics in organizational settings
with implications for performance ratings.
Status Characteristics Theory
Status characteristics theory (SCT) describes and
explains the process through which individuals
form performance expectations and impressions
regarding themselves and others that guide their
behavior when working together (Berger et al.,
1966). In addition, the theory specifies that categorical distinctions between individuals (e.g., gender) emerge as status characteristics when there
are socially shared beliefs that one state of the category is associated with greater value or desirability (e.g., male) than another state of the category
(e.g., female; Ridgeway, 2001; Ridgeway & Correll,
2004). Theoretically, these status characteristics
provide the basis for inferring individuals’ capabilities (Berger, Cohen, & Zelditch, 1972) and to
affect patterns of social interactions (Humphreys
& Berger, 1981). Consistent with this, empirical
research has confirmed that status characteristics
such as ethnicity, gender, and occupation affect
social influence processes (Kalkhoff & Thye, 2006)
and the allocation of rewards (Berger, Ridgeway,
Fisek, & Norman, 1988).
Several formal propositions have been derived
from SCT that clarify the processes affected by
status characteristics (Ridgeway & Correll, 2004).
One critical proposition states that when multiple status characteristics are present, expectations
are derived from a summation or aggregate of the
positive and negative status characteristics that
are weighted with regard to their relevance in the
situation. These aggregate expectations are argued
to directly influence behaviors and evaluations.
Indeed, possession of a valued state of a characteristic is associated with positive expectations and
impressions that lead to behavioral patterns that
reflect subordination. For example, status yields
behaviors such as deference, appointment of
group leaders, and evaluations related to respect
and esteem toward the individual with advantaged status (Webster & Driskell, 1983). Using this
framework, we consider hierarchical position as a
status characteristic that influences performance
ratings.
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
AND
RATINGS
OF
CEOS 285
Upper Management Position as a Status
Characteristic
Characteristics have status when they are associated with value (Ridgeway, 1991). More specifically, an attribute is considered to be a status
characteristic when different states of the attribute are evaluated differently by social consensus
(Berger et al., 1972). Logical inference and empirical research support the notion that being a member of upper management of an organization is
a highly valued attribute or, in other words, that
an executive position is a positive status characteristic especially as one moves up the hierarchy.
Upper managers earn more money, have more
power, and influence others to a greater extent
than individuals at other levels of the organization (Berger et al., 1972; Caudill, 1958). Upper
managers signal value; indeed, their
appointment can be a strategy for
Individuals are not
immediately improving impressions of an organization (Chen, typically defined by a
Hambrick, & Pollock, 2004; Higgins
& Gulati, 2003). Although formal single attribute and
leadership positions are not uniformly indicative of status (Ravlin instead can embody
& Thomas, 2005; Shelly & Webster,
multiple attributes
1997), it is a well-established finding
that those who are of higher status
that represent
are generally perceived by others to
both positive and
possess more positive traits/characteristics (Sherif & Sherif, 1953). For
negative status
example, in their classic research on
boys at summer camp, Sherif and
characteristics.
colleagues (Sherif, White, & Harvey,
1955) found that the peers of boys
who acted as group leaders expected those leaders to perform better at a novel physical task than
lower-status group members. Similarly, Barnard
(1951) argued that individuals with higher organizational status would be presumed to have more
abilities than those with lower organizational status. Consistent with this, Bunderson (2003) demonstrated that characteristics such as educational
degrees and years of company experience were
associated with perceived expertise and positive
performance expectations.
Thus, we propose that members of upper
management hold a unique position that is a
positive status characteristic. According to status
characteristics theory, by possessing a characteristic of great value, members of the upper echelons should enjoy favorable expectations and
evaluations. Importantly, however, individuals
are not typically defined by a single attribute
and instead can embody multiple attributes
that represent both positive and negative status
characteristics.
286 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, MARCH–APRIL 2016
Inconsistent Status Characteristics
The manner in which inconsistent status characteristics are aggregated has been a question of
interest to sociologists for decades (see Blalock,
1967). In examining this in the laboratory, for
instance, Berger, Norman, Balkwell, and Smith
(1992) asked participants to take part in a task
with an ostensible teammate who had various
(and sometimes inconsistent) status characteristics. The results of their experiment support the
idea that positive and negative cues are considered in combination; participants’ evaluations
of their ostensible teammates depended on the
total sum of positive and negative characteristics.
Moreover, a recent review of the status literature
suggests that “research provides most support for
a model in which all negative factors are evaluated, weighted for relevance to performance, and
then subtracted from the weighted sum of the
positive attributes to ultimately produce a single
status value for an individual” (Ravlin & Thomas,
2005, p. 973). This suggests that positive status
characteristics must be viewed in conjunction
with negative status characteristics, or more specifically, that the positive expectations generated
from the cue of hierarchical status may be attenuated when less favorable status characteristics are
present. The question that arises is, Can stigmatized characteristics overshadow the powerful status cues of executive positions?
Does Executive Level Moderate the Obesity
Stigma?
Personal characteristics can be imbued with such
shame and disgrace that they mark the bearer as
stigmatized (Goffman, 1963) and thus convey
socially devalued characteristics that detract from
expectations and impressions (see Hebl & Dovidio,
2005). Stigmatized individuals are targets of negative stereotypes, economic disadvantage, social
rejection, and discrimination (Crocker, Major, &
Steele, 1998). By definition, then, targets of stigma
possess status characteristics that are devalued in a
particular context (Ridgeway, 2001).
A common stigmatized characteristic in the
United States is obesity. It is interesting to note
that, at points in American history when resources
were scarce, weight was associated with wealth and
privilege and thinness was indicative of poverty
(see Caballero, 2007). In contemporary American
society, common assumptions include beliefs that
heavy individuals are lazy, sloppy, and lack conscientiousness (e.g., Hebl & Heatherton, 1998;
Hebl & Mannix, 2003; Polinko & Popovich, 2001).
In addition, they are perceived to be less outgoing, energetic, and active (Popovich et al., 1997;
Rothblum, Miller, & Garbutt, 1988; Schwartz,
Vartanian, Nosek, & Brownell, 2006). These stereotypes are maintained by beliefs that obesity is
a controllable condition and therefore heavy individuals are responsible for their stigma (Crandall
& Eshleman, 2003; King, Shapiro, Hebl, Singletary,
& Turner, 2006). It is important to note that there
is no evidence of difference in personality traits as
a function of body weight (M. V. Roehling et al.,
2008), suggesting that commonly held stereotypes
about obese individuals’ personalities are inaccurate. It follows that the general explanation for
obesity discrimination is that stereotypic expectations of obese individuals as lazy and inactive lead
to biased evaluations.
Moreover, obese individuals may find it particularly challenging to reach the highest levels of organizations, much like other low status
groups such as women and ethnic minorities
(P. V. Roehling, Roehling, Vandlen, Blazek, & Guy,
2009). Examination of photographs of CEOs in
the Fortune 500 suggested that heavy individuals face a glass ceiling in organizations; obese men
and women were underrepresented among CEOs
relative to the general population (P. V. Roehling
et al., 2009). It is clear that, in line with stigma
theory, the attribute of obesity affects the experiences of obese individuals at work. What is not yet
known, however, is whether the negative status
characteristic of obesity will affect evaluations of
those who have earned positions in the highest
levels of organizations.
Some evidence suggests that, like others with
negative status characteristics, obese targets may
receive less biased evaluations when they hold
positive status characteristics than when they do
not. Theory and evidence regarding the role of
individuation in reducing discrimination suggests
that bias will not exist when highly competent
targets are known to their evaluators personally
(Landy, 2008). The implication of this reasoning
is that as hierarchical level increases, upper managers—whose very positions represent powerful
status characteristics that are associated with
expectations and impressions of competence—
should be immune to stereotypic biases that
would otherwise arise through devalued status
characteristics. These notions are based on experiments that show that providing information
about positive status characteristics, such as evidence of competence (Heilman & Haynes, 2005;
Singletary & Hebl, 2009) or stereotype-inconsistent information (Fiske & Neuberg, 1990; King
& Ahmad, 2010), can reduce discrimination. For
example, a mock interview experiment showed
that high levels of job qualifications (often perceived as a positive status characteristic relative
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
OBESITY
to others) improved ratings of obese targets’
hireability, performance capacity, adaptability,
and interpersonal skills (Finkelstein et al., 2007).
However, a study on sales territory assignments
found that prior sales success did not improve
evaluations of obese sales recruits compared to
nonobese recruits (Bellizzi & Hasty, 2000). These
equivocal findings imply that positive status
characteristics, such as demonstration of task-relevant competence, may not always be sufficient
for overcoming the negative status characteristic
of obesity.
Moreover, limited evidence suggests that
biases based on other stigmatized identities can
emerge at the highest levels of organizations.
For example, archival information on a matched
comparison of male and female executives in the
financial services industry suggest that female
executives have less authority and fewer stock
options than their male counterparts (Lyness
& Thompson, 1997). As another example, providing advice, information, and flattery to top
management team members increased the likelihood that white men—but not ethnic minorities
or women—receive appointments to boards of
directors (Westphal & Stern, 2007). These preliminary findings are important because they provide
some indication that stigmatized characteristics
can affect expectations of targets even if they are
able to achieve the highest organizational positions. This suggests that even though they have
achieved some degree of success, executives may
not be immune to derailment due to biases of
others.
This rationale points to two primary possibilities. First, it could be that obesity stigma
overwhelms perceptions of even those at the
highest levels of organizations. In other words,
performance ratings could be negatively related
to body size across hierarchical levels. However,
the second possibility is that the status associated with a top executive position protects
individuals from the stigma of obesity. If hierarchically based status cues buffer targets from
the stigma of obesity, the effect of body size on
performance should diminish as organizational
level increases. We will test this possibility and
its alternative:
Hypothesis 1a: Performance ratings are negatively
related to body size across hierarchical levels.
Hypothesis 1b: The negative relationship between body
size and performance ratings is moderated by hierarchical level such that performance ratings are most
strongly related to body size for individuals at lower,
rather than higher, hierarchical levels.
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
AND
RATINGS
OF
CEOS 287
The Intersection of Obesity, Age,
and Gender
In addition to hierarchical level, the characteristic of obesity intersects with several social identity characteristics. Intersectionality theory, which
was derived from critical race and feminist theoretical perspectives (Crenshaw, 1988), highlights
the meaning and experience of being a member
of multiple social categories simultaneously (Cole,
2009). The pattern of oppression encountered by
members of one stigmatized group can be compounded when these individuals hold additional
stigmatized identities. When considering African
American women, for example, Crenshaw (1988)
described three ways in which the intersection of
gender and race might operate: African American
and Caucasian women might have similar experiences, African American women might be doubly
disadvantaged, or African American women might
have a unique set of experiences. Supporting
a “double jeopardy” perspective, Berdahl and
Moore (2006) examined men and women of different racial backgrounds and found that women
reported more sexual harassment than men, and
that minorities reported more ethnic harassment
than did whites, leading to the conclusion that
minority women experience more harassment
overall.
Negative biases associated with obesity likely
vary with the demographic attributes of gender
and age. Though the effects are not always consistent, the majority of evidence on the stigma
of obesity suggests that the stigma may be more
severe for women than men; women tend to be
judged and stigmatized on the basis of weight
and appearance more than men (e.g., Jackson,
1992; Puhl & Brownell, 2001; Puhl & Heuer, 2009;
Roehling, 1999). Recent work by P. V. Roehling
and colleagues (2009) suggests that overweight
women are proportionally less represented in
upper-level leadership positions than overweight
men. Despite the distinctions between biases
toward women and toward obese people in general, such as the fact that obesity is perceived to
be a controllable condition, the intersection of
these identities appears to yield particularly negative reactions. These findings are consistent with
role congruity (Eagly & Karau, 2002) and lack of
fit (Heilman, 2001) theories of gender and leadership, which suggest that because the female gender role is inconsistent with typical “leader” roles,
women are viewed as less appropriate for and less
effective in leadership roles than men (Heilman,
Wallen, Fuchs, & Tamkins, 2004). Women who are
heavy may be seen as a particularly poor fit with
leadership roles, suggesting that obese women
288 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, MARCH–APRIL 2016
may be doubly disadvantaged at the highest levels
of organizations.
It is unclear from existing research whether
being old will amplify the negative effects of obesity. On the one hand, preliminary studies suggest that younger workers may be held to more
stringent body size standards than their older
counterparts. For example, ratings of a range of
experimentally manipulated photographed targets
showed that obese targets who were young received
lower ratings than older obese targets (Hebl, Ruggs,
Singletary, & Beal, 2008). In addition, data from
the National Survey of Midlife Development
found that younger people were more likely to
report weight discrimination than older people.
These effects may be explained by stronger social
expectations and norms of attractiveness in youth
(Hebl et al., 2008); body size may be
associated with fewer stereotypes as
Ratings of a range
age increases. However, there is a
substantial body of research demonof experimentally
strating negative stereotypes associmanipulated
ated with older workers (for a review,
photographed targets see Posthuma & Campion, 2008).
If double jeopardy applies to the
intersection of age and body size,
showed that obese
this would imply that heavy older
targets who were
workers will be denigrated based on
young received lower both characteristics. Moreover, it is
possible that the status associated
with an executive position is parratings than older
ticularly salient for young people,
obese targets.
suggesting that youth could protect
executives from the stigma of obesity. Consistent with double jeopardy theory and
evidence, we predict that:
Hypothesis 2: The negative relationship between body
size and upper managers’ performance evaluations will
be stronger for women than men (Hypothesis 2a) and
older workers than younger workers (Hypothesis 2b).
The intersection of all three characteristics—
age, gender, and body size—could lead to “triple”
jeopardy. Although some evidence suggests that
young women may be particularly susceptible
to the stigma of obesity (Hebl et al., 2008; Rand
& Wright, 2001), the lower status associated
with each characteristic could accumulate into a
greater disadvantage. That is, executives who are
women, older, and heavy may face a compounding of negative stereotypes. From the perspective
of intersectionality theory and research on double
jeopardy, we propose that:
Hypothesis 3: The negative relationship between body
size and upper managers’ performance evaluations will
be stronger for older women than younger women and
men.
These hypotheses are tested using data from
participants in a leadership development program. These data included diagnostic information
ascertained by health professionals, demographic
data collected from upper managers themselves,
personality ratings by a subset of the upper managers, and performance ratings provided by peers,
direct reports, and supervisors. In addition to
considering the features of waist circumference,
age, and gender, we will test the robustness of
the waist size–performance rating relationship by
exploring the influence of personality and physical fitness. By fully exploring these factors that
impinge on any relationship between obesity and
evaluations, we address substantive potential confounding variables in a proactive way. Overall, the
physical examinations and multisource evaluations of top leaders will shed light on the question
of whether stereotypic expectations about obesity
affect performance evaluations at the highest levels of organizations.
Method
Participants
The participants in the study were 757 attendees
of a five-day leadership development program
between 2006 and 2010. This program is primarily designed for senior executives (the top three
tiers of their organizations) who have responsibilities for 500 or more employees and who have
15 or more years of management experience. The
sample was comprised of 17.3 percent female
leaders. The majority of participants indicated
that their ethnic background was Caucasian (73.8
percent), while others indicated Asian (1.8 percent), Hispanic (1 percent), African American (3.3
percent), Native American (.1 percent), and other
ethnic backgrounds (20 percent). The participants
ranged in age from 32 to 67 years, with a median
age of 48. These individuals represented top leadership in a wide range of sectors, including forprofit (66 percent), private nonprofit (11 percent),
and public organizations (23 percent). Almost
all participants (93 percent) worked for companies that were larger than 100 employees and the
majority (70.1 percent) worked in companies with
more than 1,000 employees.
Procedure
Approximately six weeks prior to attending their
leadership development program, participants
were asked to complete electronic survey measures
of their performance (Executive Dimensions®;
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
OBESITY
Center for Creative Leadership, 2006), personality (the Workplace Big Five; Howard & Howard,
2006), health-related behaviors, and demographics. Given that the performance measure, or
Executive Dimensions®, is a 360-degree survey,
electronic copies of this assessment were also sent
to (and completed by) the direct reports, peers,
and bosses that participants chose to serve as raters
of their performance in this program. Participants
were encouraged to choose raters who were likely
to be honest and who knew them well enough to
provide accurate ratings. In our sample, executives
chose between 1 and 6 bosses (M = 1.18), 1 and 16
peers (M = 3.79), and 1 and 16 direct reports (M =
4.40). The final ratings for each source represented
the average scores across raters because there was
a high degree of correspondence in these ratings
and the pattern of effects that emerged did not
vary as a function of rating source.1 In addition
to completing these assessments, participants
were required to take part in a physical exam conducted by medical and certified fitness professionals on the morning of the first day of their five-day
leadership development program. During this
exam, certified professionals verified participants’
responses on the health survey regarding participants’ physical activity, height, and weight. Also,
as described next, certified professionals recorded
objective measures of participants’ waist size.
Measures
Performance Evaluations
Each of the raters assessed the target leader’s effectiveness using a response scale anchored with
1(Deficient) and 5(Exceptional). We focused on 60
of 92 items that were designed to assess competencies based on taxonomies of leader performance
(Borman & Brush, 1993; Yukl, 1981). We conducted a principal axis exploratory factor analysis
using a promax rotation to examine the underlying structure of the ratings.1 To identify the factor structure that best characterized our data, we
examined a scree plot, percentages of item variance
explained by several plausible factor solutions,
and the interpretability of the factor loadings in
each of these factor solutions. For a factor structure to be considered highly interpretable, items
had to load above .40 on only one factor, and
the pattern of factor loadings had to make sense
from a conceptual standpoint (e.g., items loading
on factor 1 should reflect a common theme but
should be different from the theme reflected by
items comprising factor 2; Hatcher, 1994).
Based on the preceding criteria, the factor
analytic procedure revealed that a two-factor solution best represented our data. Of the 60 total
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
AND
RATINGS
OF
CEOS 289
items used in the factor analysis, 48 of these items
cleanly loaded onto one of the two factors. As
such, we dropped the 12 items that exhibited high
cross-loadings and re-ran the factor analysis with
the remaining 48 items. The revised two-factor
solution accounted for the majority (69.8 percent)
of the item variance. The first factor had an eigenvalue of 30.35 (explaining 63.23 percent of the
variance), and the second factor had an eigenvalue
of 3.16 (explaining 6.59 percent of the variance).
This solution also exhibited relatively good simple
structure. The average factor loadings on factors
1 and 2 were .73 and .78, respectively, while the
average cross-loadings of items on factors 1 and
2 were only .12 and .16, respectively. The items
subsumed by the first factor addressed ratings of
Task Performance (α = .98). Example items for this
factor included “translates his/her
vision into realistic business strateA yet-unexplored
gies” and “acts decisively to tackle
difficult problems.” The items subaspect of obesity
sumed by the second factor dealt
with Interpersonal Performance (α =
as a (stigmatized)
.98). Example items for this factor
included, “wins concessions from status characteristic
others without harming relationis identifying the
ships” and “publicly praises others for their performance.” These
specific cues that
two dimensions of performance are
engender negative
common across most theoretical
and empirical taxonomies of leader
expectations of heavy
performance (e.g., Motowidlo & Van
Scotter, 1994) and leader behavior
individuals.
(Fleishman, 1953; Halpin & Winer,
1957; Yukl, 2001). Thus, the analyses reported in the results section rely on average
ratings of Task and Interpersonal Performance.
Body Size
A yet-unexplored aspect of obesity as a (stigmatized) status characteristic is identifying the specific cues that engender negative expectations of
heavy individuals. Popular methods of operationalizing obesity are subject to meaningful, systematic biases. Experimental research typically involves
photographs of targets that do or do not appear
to be obese (e.g., Finkelstein et al., 2007; Hebl &
Heatherton, 1998). In such studies, judgments of
body size are made by the experimenters or through
pilot studies that confirm intended manipulations.
Survey research typically relies on self-report indicators of height and weight that are combined into
a measure of BMI (see M. V. Roehling et al., 2008)
for the purpose of categorizing them as “underweight,” “normal,” “overweight,” or “obese.”
Overreliance on the BMI has been met with criticism within some medical communities, as it may
290 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, MARCH–APRIL 2016
not adequately capture weight-related risk factors
among some groups (e.g., athletes; Ode, Pivarnik,
Reeves, & Knous, 2007). The pertinent question
here is, How do observers judge body size? Weight
stigma is likely a result of visual cues that are immediately observable. According to the NIH, a high
waist circumference is associated with risk for diabetes, hypertension, and cardiovascular disease
(particularly for individuals who are high in BMI).
Waist circumference is known as a practical tool for
assessing body composition and may be a better
indicator of health risk than BMI alone (NIH, 2010).
In addition to its implications for health, waist circumference may be the most easily observed weight
cue. Stigma, by definition, is an attribute or mark of
shame that prevents an individual from full social
acceptance (Goffman, 1963). In the case of weight,
the visible attribute of waist circumference—more
so than the obscure measure of BMI—may cue the
stigma of obesity and drive any negative evaluative
outcomes. We included measures of waist circumference and BMI to explore both predictors.
Certified fitness professionals measured each
executive’s waist size in centimeters using a Gulick
Tape Measure, which ensures standard tension for
measurement at the level of the umbilicus (see
Klein et al., 2007).
During a physical exam of all participants, a
certified fitness professional verified target executives’ height and weight. Using a standard procedure (weight in pounds * 703 / height in inches2),
the body mass index was calculated.
Physical Activity
A correlate of health and body size that has
been associated with performance evaluations
(McDowell-Larsen, Kearney, & Campbell, 2002;
Neck, Mitchell, Manz, Cooper, & Thompson,
2000) is the amount of physical activity in which
an executive engages. It is possible that observers
have some level of awareness of the physical activity of their colleagues through discussions of exercise or training regimens. We considered activity
as a control variable in analyses to ensure that any
effects of waist circumference on performance ratings are due to body size rather than the tendency
for heavier people to be less active. Participants
indicated the number of hours per week that
they engage in aerobic exercise, the intensity of
this exercise, and the frequency that they engage
in non-structured active behaviors. The set of
activities were derived using the Compendium of
Physical Activity (Ainsworth et al., 1993). They
included activities such as golf, bicycling, swimming, walking, weight lifting, and aerobics classes.
Metabolic equivalent levels were obtained for
each activity using the Compendium of Physical
Activity (Ainsworth et al., 1993). Subsequently,
physical activity was calculated as the number of
kilocalories the individual expended in physical
activity in a typical week.
Personality
In a subset of the sample (N = 331) that completed
the survey before 2008, the target executive also
completed a measure of the Big Five personality
traits (Howard & Howard, 2009). These participants indicated the degree to which statements
were true of them using a scale anchored with
–2 (The Opposite Is Clearly True) and +2 (Definitely
True). Of focus in the current research (for the purpose of creating control variables that could correlate with leader performance) are the average
responses to items reflecting Conscientiousness
(α = .74; e.g., “organizes for work effectively” and
“is always prepared”) and Extraversion (α = .70;
e.g., “prefers to work in solitude” and “thrives on
working with people”).
Hierarchical Level
Our primary measure of hierarchical level was
participants’ self- classification. Namely, participants indicated their level by classifying
themselves as “upper middle” (coded as 1),
“executive” (coded as 2), or “top” level (coded
as 3). Individuals with job titles such as “CEO”
and “President” classified their position level as
“top” (39 percent). Individuals with job titles
such as “Vice President” classified themselves
as “executive” level (55.3 percent). Finally, individuals who held job titles such as “Managing
Director” and “Assistant Vice President” indicated that they were in the “upper middle” level
(5.8 percent).
Two additional, less direct indices of hierarchical level were also used. First, participants
indicated their total annual income in dollars,
which ranged from $40,000 to $300 million, with
a median level of $325,000. Second, participants
indicated their span of control, or the number of
employees who directly report to them, which
ranged from 1 to 2,400 with a median of 7.
Demographics
The target executive indicated their gender, age,
and ethnicity. Given a small number of ethnic
minorities in each ethnic category, ethnicity was
coded as “white” and “nonwhite.” The year in
which participants completed the program was
also recorded.
Results
Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations among
study variables are provided in Table I. Participants
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
OBESITY
TABLE
I
RATINGS
OF
CEOS 291
Scale Descriptive Statistics and Zero-Order Correlations
M
SD
1
1. Waist
94.75
12.80
2. BMI
26.56
3.87
.84
1833.62 1655.69
.02
3. Activity
2
3
4
5
6
3.89
.41 –.11 –.10
.08
5. Interpersonal
Performance
3.81
.46 –.10 –.08
.07
.82
.38 –.54 –.29 –.21
.01
.03
.20
.25 –.01
6. Gender
Age
.17
48.48
6.24
.12
.06
8. Race
.23
.42 –.05 –.01
9. Year
2.97
1.28 –.04 –.02
10. Level
2.33
11. Income
12. Number of
Reports
a
325000
7
a
.58
7
8
9
10
11
12 13
.01
4. Task Performance
7.
AND
.06
.00 –.12 –.16 –.02 –.09
.21
.05
.04
.11
.05 –.04 –.08 –.11
.09
.06
.02
.04
.06
.00
1123k
.02
.00 –.05
.02
.01 –.02 –.01 –.02 –.07 –.02
4245
.05
.01
.05
.11
.12 –.04
.09 –.03
.00
.05 –.01
.01
.13
.01
.11 –.08 .06
.12 –.05 –.04 –.03
.07
.12
13. Conscientiousnessb
50.91
6.79 –.05 –.09
.03
.05 –.04 –.04
14. Extraversionb
52.6
5.73
.14
.06
.03 –.01
.04
.05 .12 .17
a
Indicates median value reported rather than mean.
b
Indicates sample size of 331; all other values based on a sample size of 757.
Note: Correlations > ± .10 are significant, p < .05. Correlations > ± .12 are significant, p < .01.
Gender coded as 0 = Female, 1 = Male. Race coded as 0 = Ethnic Minority, 1 = Nonminority. Year coded as 1 = 2006, 2 = 2007,
3 = 2008, 4 = 2009, 5 = 2010. Level coded as 1 = “upper middle,” 2 = “executive,” and 3 = “top” level.
in this study had a median BMI of 26, suggesting
that approximately half of the sample would classify as being overweight (BMI > 25). Approximately
18 percent of the sample had a BMI that would be
considered to be obese (BMI > 30). Consistent with
previous research (e.g., Klein et al., 2007), waist
circumference and BMI were highly correlated (r =
.84, p < .01). In addition, both waist circumference
and BMI were negatively correlated with each performance dimension.
Exploring the Relationship between Body
Size and Performance Ratings
To explore the relationship between body size and
performance ratings, we used hierarchical regression analyses in which covariates were entered in
the first step of a regression equation and additional predictors were entered in sequential steps
(Aiken & West, 1991; see Table II). For both Task
and Interpersonal Performance (aggregated across
peer, supervisor, and subordinate sources), the
sequence of variable entry was (1) covariates, (2)
BMI, and (3) waist circumference.2
Specifically, we began by controlling for gender, race, age, job level, and physical activity.
Significant main effects for age, ethnicity, and
physical activity suggest that older leaders, white
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
TABLE
II
Hierarchical Regression Analyses
Testing the Robustness of the ObesityPerformance Ratings Relationship
Task
Performance
b
ΔR 2
Interpersonal
Performance
b
ΔR 2
Step 1:
Gender
Age
Race
Level
Activity
Year
.07**
.03
.20**
–.11**
–.06
.09*
.05
.10**
.05
.25**
–.13**
–.08*
.07
.04
Step 2:
BMI
–.13** .01**
–.12** .01**
Step 3:
Waist
–.20*
.01*
–.26** .01**
–1.07* .01*
–.48
–1.03**
–2.98** .02**
–.19
–3.11**
Step 4:
Waist × Age
Waist × Gender
Age × Gender
Step 5:
Waist × Age ×
Gender
*p < .05, **p < .01
.22
.00
–.02
.00
292 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, MARCH–APRIL 2016
leaders, and leaders who were physically active
were evaluated more positively than younger,
ethnic minority, and less physically active leaders. Interestingly, leaders at higher organizational
levels were rated more negatively with regard to
interpersonal (but not task) performance than
leaders at lower organizational levels.
After controlling for these variables, BMI was
negatively related to both Task and Interpersonal
Performance ratings. In addition, waist circumference was a significant predictor of both performance dimensions over and above the effect of
BMI (ps < .01, ΔR2s = .01). Together, providing
initial support for Hypothesis 1a, these analyses
suggest that both BMI and waist circumference are
inversely related to performance ratings.
In a separate analysis on the subset of the
sample (N = 331) that completed the development program before 2008 (and thus had personality scores available), we further tested the
robustness of the effect of waist circumference on
performance ratings by controlling for the effects
of conscientiousness and extraversion. It has been
argued that stereotypes about obese individuals as lazy and solitary are based on a “kernel of
truth” or, in other words, that heavy individuals
may actually be less conscientious or extraverted
than thinner individuals (see M. V. Roehling et al.,
2008). Since conscientiousness and extraversion
are characteristics that can enhance performance
evaluations (Barrick & Mount, 1991) that could
arguably be linked with smaller body sizes, it is
important to determine the effects of body size
on ratings independent of personality. Consistent
with previous research (M. V. Roehling et al.,
2008), however, body size was not significantly
correlated with conscientiousness or extraversion
in the current study (ps > .05). Beyond the effects
of these personality variables and other covariates, waist circumference was significantly negatively associated with each of the performance
outcomes (ΔR2s = .04).
Hierarchical Level as a Moderator
of the Body Size–Ratings Relationship
The aforementioned analyses included organizational level (classified as “top,” “executive,” or
“upper middle”) as a control variable. To more
directly test the hypotheses, we also considered
the effects of organizational level as a moderator of
the relationship between waist circumference and
performance ratings. We included all covariates
and the main effects of both predictor variables
before entering the multiplicative interaction of
waist circumference and organizational level in
the regression model. The results suggested that
the interaction between waist circumference and
organizational level did not account for incremental variance in either Task (β =–.14, ΔR2 = .00,
p > .10) or Interpersonal Performance (β = –.04,
ΔR2 = .00, p > .10).
We conducted a parallel analysis to test the
moderating effects of income on the relationship
between waist circumference and performance as
an additional indicator of hierarchical level. The
results suggested that this interaction term did
not account for incremental variance above the
covariates and main effects of waist circumference and income in either Task (β = .37, ΔR2 = .00,
p > .10) or Interpersonal Performance (β = .92,
ΔR2 = .00, p > .10).
Span of control was a final indicator of
hierarchical level that was tested as a potential
moderator of the relationship between waist circumference and performance ratings. Number of
direct reports did not influence the relationship
between waist circumference and Task (β = –.29,
ΔR2 = .00, p > .10) or Interpersonal Performance
ratings (β = –.08, ΔR2 = .00, p > .10). Together, these
findings suggest that the relationship between
waist circumference and performance ratings is
comparable in magnitude and direction across
hierarchical levels, supporting Hypothesis 1a and
refuting Hypothesis 1b.
The Intersection of Body Size, Gender,
and Age
We also considered gender and age as moderators
of the waist circumference-performance ratings
relationship (H2). We computed relevant interaction terms and added them sequentially to the
regression models (Table II). The two-way interactions (but, contrary to H3, not the three-way
interaction) contributed significant incremental
variance to Task and Interpersonal Performance
(ΔR2 = .01 and .02, respectively, ps < .01). Contrary
to our prediction (H2a), the interaction between
waist circumference and gender was not statistically significant. However, the two-way interaction
between waist circumference and age (H2b) was
significantly related to each of the performance
dimensions. The effects were interpreted first by
graphing the full set of relations (all variables
standardized, plotted at ± 1 SD). Figure 1 demonstrates that the negative relationship between
waist circumference and the performance ratings
was stronger for older than younger workers, suggesting that being younger for those in upper
management positions buffers some of the negative effects of obesity. The direction of this effect
was consistent with a double jeopardy hypothesis:
the relationship between waist circumference and
performance ratings was stronger for older (+1 SD;
rtask = –.23, rinterpersonal = –.20, ps < .01) than younger
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
Composite Performance Rating
OBESITY
5.0
Younger
Older
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
Smaller
Larger
Waist Circumference
FIGURE 1. The Interaction between Waist
Circumference and Age
workers (–1 SD; rtask = –.11, rinterpersonal = –.12, ps >
.05). A two-way interaction between age and gender, irrelevant to the current hypotheses but consistent with double jeopardy theory, also emerged
and suggested that age was more detrimental for
female than male organizational leaders.
Discussion
Integrating the traditions of status characteristics and stigma theories, we examined whether
the devalued status conveyed by obesity could
trump the substantial positive status associated
with upper management positions in terms of its
potential influence on performance ratings. In
perhaps one of the most empirically comprehensive examinations of obesity bias conducted to
date (e.g., medical examinations and performance
evaluations of actual upper managers rather than
“paper people”), the results of this study support
a stigma perspective and suggest that bias affects
evaluations of even those who hold the greatest
status in organizations; a weight-related negative status characteristic may affect the ratings
of even CEOs and presidents as assessed by their
subordinates, peers, and supervisors who should
know them well and not be vulnerable to stereotypic beliefs. Specifically, the size of executives’
waistlines was negatively associated with others’
evaluations across hierarchical levels (job level,
income, and span of control), even after accounting for BMI, physical activity, extraversion, conscientiousness, and demographic variables.
Theoretical Implications
The findings of the present study have implications for both of the theoretical traditions that we
have discussed in this article. To begin, stigma theory and research suggest that some characteristics
convey a severely discredited social identity and
are associated with stereotypes, discrimination,
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
AND
RATINGS
OF
CEOS 293
and social disadvantage (Crocker, Major, & Steele,
1998). Previous research has demonstrated that
stigma can affect perceptions of low- and midlevel
employees in selection, training, and performance
appraisal contexts (see Leslie, King, Bradley, &
Hebl, 2008), but has not yet explored the implications of stigma for the upper echelons of organizations. Finding that obesity cues are negatively
related to evaluations of upper-middle, middle,
and top executives suggests that stigmatized characteristics can infect perceptions of even the most
powerful organization leaders in society. This
extension beyond previous research has particular
theoretical meaning in light of status characteristics theory, which implies that top executives hold
strong and positive status cues.
Indeed, these findings—that
The size of
obesity stigma affects even top
executives—could be interpreted
executives’ waistlines
as opposing status characteristics
theory (Kalkhoff & Thye, 2006).
was negatively
However, as discussed earlier with
associated with
regard to status characteristics
theory, it is possible to interpret
others’ evaluations
the current findings in light of the
notion that positive and negative across hierarchical
status attributes can be considered
levels (job level,
simultaneously. That is, multiple
attributes may be evaluated based
income, and span
on relevance to the task at hand
and aggregated (Berger et al., 1992).
of control), even
Supporting contemporary perspecafter accounting
tives of status characteristics theory, results suggest that personal
for BMI, physical
characteristics that are irrelevant to
successful task completion contrib- activity, extraversion,
ute to evaluations (e.g., Ridgeway,
2001; Ridgeway & Correll, 2004). conscientiousness,
That is, these findings suggest that
and demographic
even characteristics unrelated to a
given task (i.e., obesity) are incorvariables.
porated in status-based evaluations.
Overall, negative status characteristics derived from stigmatized identities may not
be counterbalanced by a high-status position.
The current research also has direct implications for addressing Landy’s (2008) statement that
“there is ample reason to question the extent to
which laboratory research examining the effect of
stereotypes on employment decisions and evaluations would appear to have little relevance for the
effect of stereotypes in real-world employment
decisions and evaluations” (p. 383). The basis for
this claim is that previous research on discrimination involves experiments in which little individuating information is available about the target.
The evidence presented here directly refutes this
294 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, MARCH–APRIL 2016
claim by demonstrating that expectations arising
from negatively valued status characteristics affect
evaluations of a range of leadership competencies by workers who know the target best. Indeed,
although the effect sizes for body size in this study
are small (.01– .03) after controlling for demographics, personality, and physical activity, this is
generally consistent with laboratory research findings that include small to moderate effect sizes
regarding the effect of obesity on hypothetical
employment decisions (Rudolph et al., 2008) and
effect sizes found in studies of bias toward other
groups about which management scholars and
practitioners are concerned (such as gender; e.g.,
Eagly, Makhijani & Klonsky, 1992). Importantly,
however, these small effect sizes can accumulate
over time into substantial differences. A district
manager who receives even slightly lower performance ratings because of his or her body size (or
gender or ethnicity) might not be
promoted or compensated at the
Obesity could be a
same level as his or her counterparts.
barrier not only to the This problem is likely exacerbated
in conditions in which variance in
accurate evaluation performance ratings is negatively
skewed due to positivity biases.
of performance but
Moreover, because these decisions
also to the effective often influence future decisions
(i.e., getting one promotion helps
identification of high- you get another), even small effect
sizes can have large consequences
potential employees.
(see Martell, Lane, & Emrich, 1996;
Valian, 1998).
Thus, this evidence suggests that demonstration of competence that is presumably associated with formal positions of status, which have
been shown to help to reduce discrimination
(e.g., Finkelstein et al., 2007; Heilman, Block, &
Martell, 1995; Heilman & Haynes, 2005), may
be insufficient in overcoming pervasively devalued identities. Even those who were selected for
the most critical organizational positions on the
basis of demonstrated competence are subject to
weight-related stereotypes. Thus, the current findings suggest that, despite the limitations of existing laboratory research, the stigma of obesity can
generalize to field settings and that individuating
information in the form of familiarity or competence will not eliminate bias.
In addition to these substantive contributions,
the current study also provides novel evidence
regarding the cues and conditions that give rise to
weight-related stereotypes. First, the results suggest
that waist circumference contributes to weightrelated stereotyping above and beyond the effects
of BMI, personality, and physical activity. This finding suggests that waist size is a meaningful status
characteristic of body size, and that observers may
be attending to body shape more than reflected
by weight-height ratios to a greater extent than
previously recognized. Second, the findings from
supplementary analyses suggest that the negative
relationship between waist circumference and ratings is similar for men and women. These findings imply that the inconsistent effects of gender
in previous obesity research could be attributed
to the limited amount of information available
about targets to participants. The effect of gender
may be stronger in these (primarily experimental) studies because evaluators do not have access
to information about targets beyond their social
identity categories and thus rely more closely on
these characteristics. However, the effect of obesity
on performance evaluations was stronger for older
workers than for younger workers, suggesting that
future research on the intersection between social
identity characteristics may benefit from consideration of multiple age groups (see also Hebl et al.,
2008). These effects may be attributable to the
lower status associated with being older as compared to younger; the status characteristic of age
may be aggregated with the cue of obesity. This
pattern is in line with the double jeopardy perspective derived from intersectionality theory.
Consideration of the intersection of age and obesity stigma may be particularly critical given the
increasing proportion of older individuals in the
workplace.
Practical Implications
From the perspective of organizations, executive
performance management systems can be useful
tools for organizations that struggle to balance the
need to retain upper managers with the need to
justify skyrocketing executive compensation packages to stakeholders (e.g., Wade, Porac, Polluck, &
Meindl, 1997). In addition, performance evaluations allow organizations to ensure that they are
employing, promoting, and retaining individuals who perform well in their jobs. The results
presented here raise some question about the
objectivity and fairness of these evaluations; if
stereotype-driven bias influences evaluations
of upper managers even to a small extent, compensation packages may be unjustified and high
potential individuals might be dismissed from or
overlooked for positions in which they could succeed. That is, obesity could be a barrier not only
to the accurate evaluation of performance but also
to the effective identification of high-potential
employees. Indeed, like other targets of stigma
(e.g., women; Biernat & Fuegen, 2001; Foschi,
2009), obese executives may face double standards in evaluations; executives may be subject to
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
OBESITY
higher evaluation standards as their waist circumference increases (Foschi, 2000). A more general
issue is whether 360-degree systems are appropriate for administrative decisions; perhaps such
measurement approaches are more appropriate
for development than decision making.
In any case, subjective evaluations should be
considered in conjunction with additional indicators of effectiveness. This is consistent with best
practices in performance management and the
notion of a balanced scorecard (e.g., Kaplan &
Norton, 1996). In much the same way that organizations should be evaluated holistically, it is
critical that evaluations of upper managers identify areas of effectiveness and development in a
holistic fashion. Depending on the nature of the
leader’s business, a more balanced evaluation
system would potentially also consider financial
indicators, quality indices associated with production, indicators of subordinate effectiveness, and
customer evaluations. Even if it is successfully
implemented, however, this more comprehensive
approach will not eliminate obesity bias. It will,
however, increase the chances that the complete
executive assessment contains some indices that
should be free of such bias. Thus, a more complete
and accurate picture is ascertained.
From the perspective of upper managers themselves, the current findings reinforce the importance of interpersonal impressions and highlight
the role of appearance. This was found to be true
across indicators of hierarchical status, including
job level, income, and span of control.3 Irrespective
of its fairness or utility, body size is associated with
important evaluative outcomes for the most publicly visible top executives and the lower-level
executives where public visibility is largely irrelevant. Individuals who are or who hope to become
top executives, or perhaps even who hope to run
for elected office such as Chris Christie, should
be aware that their body size affects interpersonal
impressions. Leaders with larger waistlines who
would like to proactively counteract such biases
might choose to compensate for stereotypes of
laziness (e.g., Miller, Rothblum, Felicio, & Brand,
1995) by losing weight or emphasizing their drive,
ambition, and energy in their interactions with
others (see Singletary & Hebl, 2009). Of course,
such a decision implies that the burden for reducing discrimination is on its target more so than
the society in which prejudices are perpetuated.
Why should Chris Christie, for example, have
to lose weight to demonstrate his capability as a
governor? An alternative approach for executives
might be to put in place structures or practices
that reduce biased evaluations toward stigmatized
targets in general (e.g., behaviorally anchored
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
AND
RATINGS
OF
CEOS 295
rating scales, frame of reference training). An altogether different approach might be to institute
wellness initiatives that, in line with the changing
emphasis on preventative care associated with the
Affordable Care Act, encourage a holistic wellness
paradigm that shifts the focus from weight to a
broader conceptualization of health of all workers.
Limitations and Future Research Directions
Our conclusions must be interpreted in light of
a few methodological limitations. One potential
constraint of the generalizability of the findings
is that the multisource evaluations in this study
were made in a developmental capacity rather
than for administrative purposes. Because ratings
made for developmental purposes can be more
negative than ratings that are used for administrative purposes (Jawahar & Williams, 1997), particularly when made by subordinates (Greguras,
Robie, Schleicher, & Maynard, 2003), we do not
know whether performance evaluations for compensation or selection purposes would reflect similar biases. However, this concern may be partially
mitigated given the consistency of the current
findings with laboratory-based studies.
A second limitation of the data is that we do
not have any information about the raters themselves. It is likely that rater characteristics (including, for example, age, gender, and body size) have
some influence on ratings of executives, but we
were unable to account for these sources of variance. In addition, we could not directly assess the
raters’ perceptions of the executive ratees’ status,
which would allow a more direct assessment of
the moderator of interest. Another factor that we
could not account for is ethnicity of the executive
as a potential moderator. Although we would have
liked to integrate ideas from previous research
which has demonstrated that ethnicity can play
a role in perceptions of obese targets (e.g., Hebl &
Heatherton, 1998; Hebl, King, & Perkins, 2009),
there were simply not enough minorities in the
sample to obtain stable estimates of these effects.
Thus, this is certainly an important area for future
research. Finally, we were not able to account for
individual differences in intelligence or experience, variables which typically account for substantial variance in performance ratings. However,
it is likely that there would be little variance on
these variables for the participants in this study
given that they have all achieved relatively highlevel jobs in their organizations. Also, we are not
aware of any previous research that empirically
links body size to either construct, alleviating concerns that intelligence and experience might be
unmeasured confounds. The current findings suggest that the effect of obesity on ratings is robust
296 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, MARCH–APRIL 2016
mance dimensions supported by the factor analysis,
suggesting sufficient reliability to justify aggregation
(see LeBreton & Senter, 2007). For exploratory purposes, we also conducted all inferential tests using
data from each rater independently and found identical patterns across rating sources.
with regard to previously unexplored conditions,
but future research should explore rater characteristics in relation to administrative evaluations
of minority and nonminority executives to determine the generalizability of the current findings.
Conclusion
This article describes a unique and robust test of
the emergence of bias toward obese executives.
Specifically, we provide empirical evidence from
multisource ratings of actual executives to explore
waist circumference as a stigmatized characteristic that affects evaluations of individuals who
otherwise possess substantial status. The current
findings highlight the perniciousness of weightrelated bias and suggest that negative expectations associated with the stigma of obesity cannot
be entirely overcome through formal status characteristics. Instead, powerful stereotypes permeate
the upper echelons of organizations.
Notes
1.
The results presented here are based on a factor
analysis of the aggregated ratings provided by peers,
direct reports, and supervisors. We examined the factor structure of the items separately within each rater
source separately and obtained similar results. There
was a high level of consistency across the supervisor,
peer, and subordinate ratings (in line with Facteau &
Craig, 2001); ICCs based on one-way mixed model
consistency estimates were .70 and .74 for the perfor-
2.
Given the high correlation between waist circumference and BMI, we also conducted alternative analyses in which waist circumference was entered before
BMI in the regression models. The results of these
analyses suggest that the effect of waist circumference is similar in direction and magnitude, but show
that BMI does not contribute incremental variance in
explaining performance ratings over and above waist
circumference. Thus, these results lend support to the
notion that waist circumference, rather than BMI, may
be an observable cue triggering the obesity stigma.
It is also worth noting that we conducted separate
analyses using only one of the indicators of obesity
(without the other) and found comparable patterns.
3.
Furthermore, we explored the role of organizational
type (“business sector” versus “public” and “nonprofit”) as a moderator to determine whether biases
are greater for upper management when they are
more likely to represent their company to external
stakeholders (i.e., in the business sector). The results
of these analyses (which yielded a nonsignificant
effect of the interaction term) suggest that the effect
of waist size on ratings does not vary significantly as
a function of the type of organization.
EDEN B. KING joined the faculty of the Industrial-Organizational Psychology program at
George Mason University after earning her PhD from Rice University in 2006. Dr. King is pursuing a program of research that seeks to guide the equitable and effective management of
diverse organizations. Her research integrates organizational and social psychological theories in conceptualizing social stigma and the work-life interface. She is currently an associate
editor for the Journal of Management and the Journal of Business and Psychology. Dr. King
was honored to receive the State Council of Higher Education of Virginia’s Rising Star Award
in 2011.
STEVEN G. ROGELBERG is a professor and director of organizational science at the University of North Carolina Charlotte. He’s designated by the board of trustees as the first and
presently only “University Professor” at UNC Charlotte for distinguished national, international, and interdisciplinary contributions. He has over 80 publications addressing issues
such as team effectiveness, leadership, engagement, health and employee well-being, meetings at work, and organizational research methods. Other awards include receiving the Distinguished Service Award, Fellow of the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology,
and the BGSU Master Teacher Award. He is the editor of the Journal of Business and Psychology.
MICHELLE R. HEBL is a full professor of psychology and management at Rice University.
She received her BA at Smith College in 1991 and her PhD at Dartmouth College in 1997. She
joined the faculty at Rice University in 1998. Mikki’s research focuses on workplace discrimination and the presence, impact, and remediation of subtle forms of discrimination. She has
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
OBESITY
AND
RATINGS
OF
CEOS 297
more than 120 publications, most of which focus on issues of equity. She also has national
grant funding and has received more than 15 teaching awards.
PHILLIP W. BRADDY is a research scientist in Research, Innovation, and Product Development
at the Center for Creative Leadership in Greensboro, North Carolina. His research focuses on
leadership and the use of 360-degree feedback in organizations. Phillip’s PhD is in industrial/
organizational psychology from North Carolina State University.
LINDA R. SHANOCK is associate professor of psychology and associate director of the organizational science doctoral program at UNC Charlotte. Her main research area is employee
attitudes. She is one of the leading authors on perceived organizational support and has over
20 publications in outlets such as the Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of Management, Journal of Organizational Behavior, and Journal of Business and Psychology and has
presented her work in many conference presentations. She currently serves on the editorial
board of the Journal of Business and Psychology.
SHARON C. DOERER is a senior talent management advisor at TIAA-CREF in Charlotte, North
Carolina. Her primary research interests focus on the effect of status processes on employee
outcomes including hiring, salary setting, and promotion.
SHARON McDOWELL-LARSEN has worked for over 16 years with executives from all parts of
the globe to improve their health and fitness. She has worked with numerous custom clients
to design and implement a Fitness for Leadership component in their leadership training
courses. Sharon came to CCL after having spent three years working with elite athletes at
U.S. Swimming, and the U.S. Olympic Committee’s Sports Science Division. While there she
was involved in research related to athletic performance, and the effect of stress on elite athletes. While at U.S. Swimming she taught undergraduate and graduate courses in exercise
physiology at the University of Colorado, Colorado Springs.
References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing
and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Ainsworth, B. E., Haskell, W. L., Leon, A. S., Jacobs, D. R.,
Montoye, H. J., Sallis, J. F., & Paffenbarger, R. S. (1993).
Compendium of physical activities: Classification of
energy costs of human physical activities. Medical Science Sports Exercise, 25, 71–80.
Barnard, C. I. (1951). Functions of status systems in formal
organizations. In R. Dubin (Ed.), Human relations in
administration. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). Personality dimensions
and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1–26.
Bellizzi, J. A., & Hasty, R.W. (2000). Does successful work
experience mitigate weight and gender based employment in face-to-face industrial selling? Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 15, 384–398.
Berdahl, J. L., & Moore, C. (2006). Workplace harassment:
Double jeopardy for minority women. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 91, 426–436.
Berger, J., Cohen, B. P., & Zelditch, M. (1966). Status characteristics and expectation states. In J. Berger, M. Zelditch,
& B. Anderson (Eds.), Sociological theories in progress
(pp. 29–46). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Berger, J., Cohen, B. P., & Zelditch, M. (1972). Status characteristics and social interaction. American Sociological
Review, 37, 241–255.
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
Berger, J., Norman, R. Z., Balkwell, J. W., & Smith, R. F.
(1992). Status inconsistency in task situations. A test of
four status processing principles. American Sociological
Review, 57, 843–855.
Berger, J., Ridgeway, C., Fisek, M. H., & Norman, R. Z. (1988).
The legitimation and delegitimation of power and prestige orders. American Sociological Review, 63, 379–405.
Biernat, M., & Fuegen, K. (2001). Shifting standards and the
evaluation of competence: Complexity in gender-based
judgment and decision making. Journal of Social Issues,
57, 707.
Blalock, H. M. (1967). Toward a theory of minority-group relations. New York, NY: Wiley.
Borman, W. C., & Brush, D. H. (1993). More progress toward
a taxonomy of managerial performance requirements.
Human Performance, 6, 1–21.
Bunderson, J. S. (2003). Recognizing and utilizing expertise
in work groups: A status characteristics perspective.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 557–591.
Caballero, B. (2007). The global epidemic of obesity: An overview. Epidemiological Review, 1–5.
Caudill, W. (1958). The psychiatric hospital as a small society.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Center for Creative Leadership. (2006). Executive Dimensions facilitator’s manual. Greensboro, NC: Author.
Chen, G., Hambrick, D. C., & Pollock, T. G. (2004). Puttin’ on
the Ritz: Pre-IPO enlistment of prestigious affiliates as
deadline-induced remediation. Academy of Management
Journal, 51, 954–975.
298 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, MARCH–APRIL 2016
Cole, E. R. (2009). Intersectionality and research in psychology. American Psychologist, 64, 170–180.
Crandall, C. S. (1994). Prejudice against fat people: Ideology
and self-interest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 882–894.
Crandall, C. S., & Biernat, M. (1990). The ideology of antifat attitudes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20,
227–243.
Crandall, C. S., & Eshleman, A. (2003). A justificationsuppression model of the expression and experience of
prejudice. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 414–446.
Crandall, C. S., & Martinez, R. (1996). Culture, ideology, and
antifat attitudes. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 1165–1176.
Crenshaw, K. (1988). Race, reform, and retrenchment: Transformation and legitimation and anti-discrimination law.
Harvard Law Review, 101, 1331–1387.
Crocker, J., Cornwell, B., & Major, B. (1993). The stigma
of overweight: Affective consequences of attributional
ambiguity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
64, 60–70.
Crocker, J., Major, B., & Steele, C. (1998). Social stigma. In
D. T. Gilbert & S. T. Fiske (Eds.), The handbook of social
psychology (Vol. 2, 4th ed., pp. 504–553). New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.
Crosby, F. (1984). The denial of personal discrimination.
American Behavioral Scientist, 27, 371–386.
Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of
prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review,
109, 573–598.
Eagly, A. H., Makhijani, M. G., & Klonsky, B. G. (1992). Gender and the evaluation of leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 3–22.
Elgar, F. J., Roberts, C., Tudor-Smith, C., & Moore, L. (2005).
Validity of self-reported height and weight and predictors
of bias in adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 37,
371–375.
Facteau, J. D., & Craig, S. B. (2001). Are performance
appraisal ratings from different sources comparable?
Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 215–227.
Finkelstein, L. M., Demuth, R. L., & Sweeney, D. L. (2007).
Bias against overweight job applicants: Further explorations of when and why. Human Resource Management,
46, 203–222.
Fiske, S. T., & Neuberg, S. L. (1990). A continuum of impression formation, from category-based to individuating
processes: Influences of information and motivation
on attention and interpretation. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.),
Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 23, pp.
1–74). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Fleishman, E. A. (1953). Leadership climate, human relations
training, and supervisory behavior. Personnel Psychology, 6, 205–222.
Foschi, M. (2000). Double standards for competence:
Theory and research. Annual Review of Sociology, 26,
21–42.
Foschi, M. (2009). Gender, performance level, and competence standards in task groups. Social Science Research,
38, 447–457.
Gerber, G. L. (1996). Status in same-gender and mixedgender police dyads: Effects on personality attributions.
Social Psychology Quarterly, 59, 350–363.
Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of
spoiled identity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Greguras, G. J., Robie, C., Schleicher, D. J., & Maynard, G., III.
(2003). A field study of the effects of rating purpose on
the quality of multisource ratings. Personnel Psychology, 56(1), 1–21.
Haddon, H., & Winslow, R. (2013). Long dogged by weight,
Christie has surgery. Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732432650
4578468821306525876.html
Halpin, A. W., & Winer, B. J. (1957). A factorial study of
the leader behavior descriptions. In R. M. Stogdill & A.
E. Coons (Eds.), Leader behavior: Its description and
measurement. Columbus: Bureau of Business Research,
Ohio State University.
Harvey, O. J. (1953). An experimental approach to the study
of status relations in informal groups. American Sociological Review, 18, 357–367.
Hatcher, L. (1994). A step-by-step approach to using SAS for
factor analysis and structural equation modeling. Cary,
NC: SAS Institute.
Hebl, M., & Dovidio, J. F. (2005). Promoting the “social” in
the examination of social stigmas. Personality and Social
Psychological Review, 9, 156–182.
Hebl, M., & Mannix, L. (2003). The weight of obesity in evaluating others: A mere proximity effect. Personality and
Social Psychological Bulletin, 29, 28–38.
Hebl, M. R., & Heatherton T. F. (1998). The stigma of obesity
in women: The difference is black and white. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 417–426.
Hebl, M. R., King, E. B., & Perkins, A. (2009). Ethnic differences in the stigma of obesity: Identification and engagement with a thin ideal. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 45, 1165–1172.
Hebl, M. R., Ruggs, E. N., Singletary, S. L., & Beal, D. (2008).
Perceptions of obesity across the lifespan. Obesity, 16,
46–52.
Heilman, M. E. (2001). Description and prescription: How
gender stereotypes prevent women’s ascent up the
organizational ladder. Journal of Social Issues, 57,
657–674. Heilman, M. E., Block, C. J., & Martell, R. F. (1995). Sex
stereotypes: Do they influence perceptions of managers? Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 10,
237–252.
Heilman, M. E., & Haynes, M. C. (2005). No credit where
credit is due: Attributional rationalization of women’s success in male–female teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 905–916.
Heilman, M. E., Wallen, A. S., Fuchs, D., & Tamkins, M. M.
(2004). Penalties for success: Reactions to women who
succeed at male tasks. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89,
416–427.
Higgins, M. C., & Gulati, R. (2003). Getting off to a good
start: The effects of upper echelon affiliations on underwriter prestige. Organizational Science, 14, 244–263.
Hollander, E. P. (1961). Some effects of perceived status on
responses to innovative behavior. Journal of Abnormal
and Social Psychology, 61, 365–370.
Howard, P. J., & Howard, J. M. (2006). Workplace Big Five
Profile 3.0 Professional Manual. Charlotte, NC: Center for
Applied Cognitive Studies.
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
OBESITY
Howard, P. J., & Howard, J. M. (2009). Workplace Big Five
Profile 4.0 Professional Manual. Charlotte, NC: Center for
Applied Cognitive Studies.
Humphreys, P., & Berger, J. (1981). Theoretical consequences
of the status characteristics formulation. American Journal of Sociology, 86, 953–983.
Jackson, L. A. (1992). Physical attractiveness and gender:
Sociobiological and sociocultural perspectives. Albany:
State University of New York Press.
Jawahar, I. M., & Williams, C. R. (1997). Where all the children are above average: The performance appraisal purpose effect. Personnel Psychology, 50, 905–925.
Judge, T. A., & Cable, D. M. (2011). When it comes to pay, do
the thin win? The effect of weight on pay for men and
women. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 95.
Kalkhoff, W., & Thye, S. R. (2006). Expectation states theory
and research: New observations from meta-analysis.
Sociological Methods and Research, 35, 219–249.
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1996). Using the balanced
scorecard as a strategic management system. Harvard
Business Review, 76.
King, E. B., & Ahmad, A. (2010). An experimental field study
of interpersonal discrimination toward Muslim job applicants. Personnel Psychology, 63, 881–906.
King, E. B., Shapiro, J., Hebl, M. R., Singletary, S., & Turner,
S. (2006). The stigma of obesity in customer service:
A mechanism of remediation and bottom-line consequences of interpersonal discrimination. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 91, 579–593.
Klein, S., Allison, D. B., Heymsfield, S. B., Kelley, D. E.,
Leibel, R. L., Nonas, C., & Kahn, R. (2007). Waist circumference and cardiometabolic risk a consensus statement
from Shaping America’s Health: Association for Weight
Management and Obesity Prevention; NAASO, The Obesity Society; the American Society for Nutrition; and the
American Diabetes Association. American Journal of
Clinical Nutrition, 85, 1197–1202.
Landy, F. J. (2008). Stereotypes, bias, and personnel decisions: Strange and stranger. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice,
1, 379–392.
LeBreton, J. M., & Senter, J. L. (2008). Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and interrater agreement.
Organizational Research Methods, 11, 815–852.
Leslie, L. M., King, E. B., Bradley, J. C., & Hebl, M. R. (2008).
Triangulating across multiple methods: All signs point to
persistent stereotyping in organizations. Industrial and
Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and
Practice, 1, 399–404.
Lyness, K. S., & Thompson, D. E. (1997). Above the glass ceiling? A comparison of matched samples of female and male
executives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 359–375.
Martell, R. F., Lane, D. M., & Emrich, C. (1996). Male-female
differences: A computer simulation. American Psychologist, 157–158.
McDowell-Larsen, S. L., Kearney, L., & Campbell, D. (2002).
Fitness and leadership: Is there a relationship? Regular
exercise correlates with higher leadership ratings in
senior-level executives. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 17, 316–324.
Miller, C. T., Rothblum, E. D., Felicio, D., & Brand, P. (1995).
Compensating for stigma: Obese and nonobese women’s
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
AND
RATINGS
OF
CEOS 299
reactions to being visible. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 1093–1106.
Motowidlo, S. J., & Van Scotter, J. R. (1994). Evidence that
task performance should be distinguished from contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,
79(4), 475.
Murphy, K. R., Herr, B. M., Lockhart, M C., & Maguire, E.
(1986). Evaluating the performance of paper people.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 654–661.
National Institutes of Health. (2010). Statistics related to
overweight and obesity. Retrieved from: http://win.niddk
.nih.gov/statistics/
Neck, C. P., Mitchell, T. L., Manz, C. C., Cooper, K. H., &
Thompson, E. C. (2000). Fit to lead: Is fitness the key to
effective executive leadership? Journal of Managerial
Psychology, 15, 833–840.
Ode, J. J., Pivarnik, J. M., Reeves, M. J., & Knous, J. L.
(2007). Body mass index as a predictor of percent fat in
college athletes and non-athletes. Medical Science Sports
Exercise, 39, 403–409.
Polinko, N. K., & Popovich, P. M. (2001). Evil thoughts by
angelic actions: Responses to overweight job applicants.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 905–924.
Popovich, P. M., Everton, W. J., Campbell, K. L., Godinho, R.
M., Kramer, K., & Mangan, M. R. (1997). Criteria used to
judge obese persons in the workplace. Perceptual and
Motor Skills, 85, 859–866.
Posthuma, R. A., & Campion, M. A. (2008). Age stereotypes
in the workplace: Common stereotypes, moderators, and
future research. Journal of Management, 35, 158–188.
Puhl, R., & Brownell, K. D. (2001). Bias, discrimination, and
obesity. Obesity Research, 9, 788–805.
Puhl, R. M., & Heuer, C. A. (2009). The stigma of obesity: A
review and update. Obesity, 1–24.
Rand, C. S., & Wright B. (2001). Thinner females and heavier
males: Who says? A comparison of female to male ideal
body sizes across a wide age span. International Journal
of Eating Disorders, 29, 45–50.
Ravlin, E. C., & Thomas, D. C. (2005). Status and stratification
processes in organizational life. Journal of Management,
31, 966–987.
Ridgeway, C. L. (1991). The social construction of status
value: Gender and other nominal characteristics. Social
Forces, 70, 367–386.
Ridgeway, C. L. (2001). Social status and group structure.
In M. A. Hogg & S. Tindale (Eds.), Blackwell handbook
of social psychology: Group processes (pp. 352–375).
Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Ridgeway, C. L., & Correll, S. J. (2004). Motherhood as a status characteristic. Journal of Social Issues, 60, 683–700.
Roehling, M. V. (1999). Weight-based discriminations in
employment: Psychological and legal aspects. Personnel
Psychology, 52, 969–1016.
Roehling, M. V., Roehling, P. V., & Odland, L. M. (2008).
Investigating the validity of stereotypes about overweight
employees: The relationship between body weight
and normal personality traits. Group and Organization
Management, 33, 392–424.
Roehling, P. V., Roehling, M. V., Vandlen, J. D., Blazek, J., &
Guy, W. C. (2009). Weight discrimination and the glass
ceiling effect among top U.S. CEOS. Equal Opportunities
International, 28, 179–196.
300 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, MARCH–APRIL 2016
Rothblum, E. D., Miller, C. T., & Garbutt, B. (1988). Stereotypes of obese female job applicants. International
Journal of Eating Disorders, 7, 277–283.
Rudolph, C. W., Wells, C. L., Weller, M. D., & Baltes, B. B. (2008).
A meta-analysis of empirical studies of weight-based bias
in the workplace. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74, 1–10.
Schwartz, M. B., Vartanian, L. R., Nosek, B. A., & Brownell,
K. D. (2006). The influence of one’s own body weight on
implicit and explicit anti-fat bias. Obesity, 14, 440–447.
Shapiro, J., King, E. B., & Quiñones, M. (2007). Expectations
of obese trainees: How stigmatized trainee characteristics
influence training effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 239–249.
Shelly, R. K., & Webster, M. (1997). How formal status, liking,
and ability status structure interaction: Three theoretical principles and a test. Sociological Perspectives, 40,
81–107.
Sherif, M., & Sherif, C. W. (1953). Groups in harmony and
tension. New York, NY: Harper.
Sherif, M., White, B. J., & Harvey, O. J. (1955). Status in
experimentally produced groups. American Journal of
Sociology, 60, 370–379.
Singletary, S. L., & Hebl, M. R. (2009). Compensatory
strategies for reducing interpersonal discrimination.
The effectiveness of acknowledgments, increased
positivity, and individuating information. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 94, 797–805.
Torrance, E. P. (1955). Perception of group functioning as a
predictor of group performance. Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 271–282.
Valian, V. (1998). Why so slow? The advancement of women.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wade, J. B., Porac, J. F., Pollock, T. G., & Meindl, J. (1997).
Hitch your wagon to a CEO star? Testing two views about
the pay, reputation and performance of top executives.
Corporate Reputation Review, 1, 1–2.
Webster, M., & Driskell, J. E. (1983). Beauty as status. American Journal of Sociology, 89, 140–165.
Westphal, J. D., & Stern, I. (2007). Flattery will get you
everywhere especially if you are a male and Caucasian:
How ingratiation, boardroom behavior, and demographic
minority status affect additional board appointments at
U.S. companies. Academy of Management Journal, 50,
267–288.
Yukl, G. (2001). Leadership in organizations (5th ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Yukl, G. A. (1981). Leadership in organizations. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm